Octantis Services Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Law And Justice And Ors

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders were passed without giving the Petitioner an adequate opportunity to present their case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the factual scenario, including the lack of proper service of the first SCN and the extremely short timelines for reply and hearing for the subsequent SCNs, was not disputed by the Revenue. Consequently, the impugned orders dated June 13, 2025, and August 28, 2025 (two orders), were quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to Respondent No. 2 to adjudicate the Show Cause Notices afresh. The Petitioner was directed to file their reply within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon filing the reply, Respondent No. 2 was to grant a personal hearing and then pass a reasoned order. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness and adequate opportunity to respond are fundamental to the principles of natural justice, and failure to provide these vitiates any subsequent orders.

Facts

The Petitioner, Octantis Services Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging impugned orders dated June 13, 2025, and August 28, 2025, along with Show Cause Notices (SCNs) dated June 10, 2025, August 25, 2025, and another August 25, 2025. The Petitioner's primary grievance was a breach of natural justice. The first SCN, dated June 10, 2025, was allegedly never served, only uploaded on the GST portal, with a reply deadline of June 25, 2025. The subsequent SCNs dated August 25, 2025, provided only three days for reply (due August 28, 2025) and scheduled the hearing for the same date. The impugned orders were also passed on August 28, 2025. The Petitioner contended they were not given adequate opportunity to respond.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated June 13, 2025, and August 28, 2025, were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning adequate opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notices (SCNs)? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed in gross violation of natural justice. They contended that the SCN dated June 10, 2025, was never served, preventing any response. For the SCNs dated August 25, 2025, the Petitioner argued that the three-day window for filing a reply and the hearing scheduled for the same date, followed by the passing of orders on the same day, did not constitute an adequate opportunity to present their case. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that the factual scenario presented by the Petitioner was not disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue.